Experiential realism and digital place-making

Abstract

Despite originating as practical aides for the design of real-world architecture, Computer Aided Design and Draughting (CADD) software initially encountered a great deal of resistance, in part because of their initial expense and apparent technical complexity, but also because they were seen as blunt tools, crude instrumentation inadequate for the artistic expression of place. In March 2004 at an informal seminar hosted at the University of Melbourne in Australia, the eminent scholar Professor Marco Frascari argued computer reconstructions of architecture were far too exact and thus too limited in conveying the mood and atmosphere of architecture.With all due respect to Professor Frascari, this article will argue the converse: that recent developments in interactive technology offer new and exciting ways of conveying 'lived' and experientially deepened notions of architectural place-making.

Monstrous hybridity of social information technologies: Through the lens of photorealism and non-photorealism in archaeological visualization

“…However, in contrast to the widespread optimistic claims, critical voices have warned of the possibility of lifelike models misleading their spectators. A fundamental problem with photorealistic visualizations can be, as Champion (2015) notes, that in their lifelikeness, they do not prompt spectators to look behind the graphic. In their capability to suggest authenticity, they can become a "dangerous source of misinformation" (Hageneuer 2020, 102).…”

“…There has been a lot of discussion on how to develop a working reference apparatus that is aligned with the "language" (cf. Manovich 2001) of 3 D models (Vatanen 2003), how to document the sources, inferences, and decisions in the development of a particular aspect of a model (Bentkowska-Kafel, Denard, and Baker 2012), and how to visualize and communicate degrees of uncertainty of interpretations in final models (e.g., Apollonio and Giovannini 2015;Champion 2015;Danielov a, Kumke, and Peters 2016;Kastanis 2019;Reilly and Rahtz 1992). Several proposals exist (e.g., Apollonio and Giovannini 2015;Coeur and Moccozet 2011;Hauck and Kuroczy nski 2015;Kolenda and Markiewicz 2017;Niccolucci 2010;Polig 2017;Ryan 2001) but there is no real consensus on the means.…”

“…Haraway 1992), replacing an evidence-based image of the past with a fictive one and also undermining of critical understanding of the limits of what is knowable about the past. In addition to such advocates and critics of photorealism, there are also voices (e.g., Champion 2015;Huvila 2017;Jones et al 2018) who have called for a nuanced understanding of the advantages, disadvantages, and monstrosity of different types of lifelike, semi-lifelike, and diagrammatic visualizations.…”

The emergence of creative and digital place-making: A scoping review across disciplines

“…For example, the related concept of ‘cultural mapping’ is a methodological tool used in urban planning, cultural sustainability and community development to highlight local stories, practices relationships, memories and rituals that make places meaningful locations (Duxbury et al, 2015). ‘Digital placemaking’ practices in the heritage sector have focused on (1) engaging the public in ‘immersive’ experiences, (2) pedagogically teaching students about history and (3) creating scientific realism for rebuilding the past through historical digital simulations (Champion, 2015). These three thematic foci have largely come together in the form of interactive digital narratives (e.g.…”